4 ms·

I've always wondered why the flu shot wasn't 100% free even without insurance. It wouldn't surprise me if one insurance company (or a collective of companies) c

I've always wondered why the flu shot wasn't 100% free even without insurance. It wouldn't surprise me if one insurance company (or a collective of companies) could lower their net payout by increasing the number of total vaccinated people. A one day clinic recently that I went to only charged $30 for uninsured people.

toss1 9y ago
It would not surprise me if the math actually worked out that it would be best to pay people $5 or something to get the shot. It's be especially good if the payout was perhaps $2 to get it but $5 if more than 50% of the pop in an area got the shot. Maybe manageable with an Etherium contract?
- mayneack 9y ago
  Yeah, I guess instead of rolling the dice on herd immunity by subsidizing everyone. they could just offer monetary incentives for their customers.
gizmo686 9y ago
Why would it benifit an insurance company? In effect, they would simply be subsidizing people who are not their customers (either because they are uninsured, or insured by a different company). Therefore, the insurance company would not see any reduction in payout. Further, in effect insurane companies do pay their customers to get the flue shot, because they pay full price for the shot, but some distributors (like CVS) offer a discount on unrelated purchases for getting the shot. I think the solution here is government provided shots. Even without going to full government healthcare, vaccinations seems to fall well withing the CDC's perview. And, due to the herd immunity factor, there is a general societal interest in people getting vacinated (beyond the costs on society of a person getting sick).
- jakobegger 9y ago
  I think the logic goes like this: 1) Insurance company has customers that don't get vaccinated 2) Insurance company pays for vaccinations of uninsured people 3) Uninsured people don't get sick 4) Uninsured people don't infect their unvaccinated customers 5) Insurance company has lower payouts because their customers don't get sick as much From a financial point of view, this probably only makes sense if the cost of the vaccine is significantly lower than the cost of care of someone who catches the flu.
  - positr0n 9y ago
    An insurance company can be more profitable if their customer base is more healthy (less payouts) then their competitors. Society wide health improvement schemes like this generally hurt insurance company's profits since their profit and administrative overhead costs are capped to a percentage of the cost of their insurance plans[0]. One of the problems with healthcare in the US is that not many of the players are incentivized to improve costs. Industry wide inefficiency just means the insurance industry's 3% (or whatever) profit margin is larger in absolute terms. [0]: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-review/ https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-...
    - awakeasleep 9y ago
      Do you know how that works? If a statistical fluke or some sort of weird event caused far fewer people to file claims, but the insurance company is already collecting the money from employers and planholders, what would happen?
      - spiznnx 9y ago
        If its a fluke, they make short term profits. If you adopt a new policy that makes health insurance cheaper to provide in the long run, your competitors will force your prices down to that new price, lowering your profits.
      - positr0n 9y ago
        If they make too much profit they have to pay back the extra in the form of a rebate (according to the link I provided).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

toss1 9y ago

It would not surprise me if the math actually worked out that it would be best to pay people $5 or something to get the shot. It's be especially good if the payout was perhaps $2 to get it but $5 if more than 50% of the pop in an area got the shot. Maybe manageable with an Etherium contract?

mayneack 9y ago
Yeah, I guess instead of rolling the dice on herd immunity by subsidizing everyone. they could just offer monetary incentives for their customers.

gizmo686 9y ago

Why would it benifit an insurance company? In effect, they would simply be subsidizing people who are not their customers (either because they are uninsured, or insured by a different company). Therefore, the insurance company would not see any reduction in payout. Further, in effect insurane companies do pay their customers to get the flue shot, because they pay full price for the shot, but some distributors (like CVS) offer a discount on unrelated purchases for getting the shot. I think the solution here is government provided shots. Even without going to full government healthcare, vaccinations seems to fall well withing the CDC's perview. And, due to the herd immunity factor, there is a general societal interest in people getting vacinated (beyond the costs on society of a person getting sick).

jakobegger 9y ago
I think the logic goes like this: 1) Insurance company has customers that don't get vaccinated 2) Insurance company pays for vaccinations of uninsured people 3) Uninsured people don't get sick 4) Uninsured people don't infect their unvaccinated customers 5) Insurance company has lower payouts because their customers don't get sick as much From a financial point of view, this probably only makes sense if the cost of the vaccine is significantly lower than the cost of care of someone who catches the flu.
- positr0n 9y ago
  An insurance company can be more profitable if their customer base is more healthy (less payouts) then their competitors. Society wide health improvement schemes like this generally hurt insurance company's profits since their profit and administrative overhead costs are capped to a percentage of the cost of their insurance plans[0]. One of the problems with healthcare in the US is that not many of the players are incentivized to improve costs. Industry wide inefficiency just means the insurance industry's 3% (or whatever) profit margin is larger in absolute terms. [0]: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-review/ https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-...
  - awakeasleep 9y ago
    Do you know how that works? If a statistical fluke or some sort of weird event caused far fewer people to file claims, but the insurance company is already collecting the money from employers and planholders, what would happen?
    - spiznnx 9y ago
      If its a fluke, they make short term profits. If you adopt a new policy that makes health insurance cheaper to provide in the long run, your competitors will force your prices down to that new price, lowering your profits.
    - positr0n 9y ago
      If they make too much profit they have to pay back the extra in the form of a rebate (according to the link I provided).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]